• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Cleveland Browns (2017 Thread of Chlamydia)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jaxbuck said:
Well, yes and no.

I don't know who these guys you are referencing are but from a business point of view it always comes down to ROI.

What return could you have gotten for that $16MM this year vs the 2nd round pick next year? That is the bet as I would look at it if I were the Browns owner.

I don't pretend to know enough about the variables to give an opinion on what could have been done with the money or what the draft pick could potentially but I am certain of how to analyse the eventual return.
Click to expand...

Bill Polian and Herm Edwards.

Sure, if the Browns intended to spend that $16M this year, that would be the case. But they weren't spending all that cap space. They entered FA with over $100M in space to start with. They would have to spend over $80M for that $16M to really matter as it is going to disappear off the books next year anyway. That $16M that they weren't going to spend anyway will be back in their cap wallet next year either way.
 
Upvote 0
CFPBuckeye said:
Bill Polian and Herm Edwards.

Sure, if the Browns intended to spend that $16M this year, that would be the case. But they weren't spending all that cap space. They entered FA with over $100M in space to start with. They would have to spend over $80M for that $16M to really matter as it is going to disappear off the books next year anyway. That $16M that they weren't going to spend anyway will be back in their cap wallet next year either way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, while Jax is correct that it does come down to ROI, the analyses (for the most part) out there are considering it like cap constrained money, instead of just money. So, if this had been a situation where they were going to not sign another player as a result, then it's dumb. But dead money is only dead if you were going to use it otherwise.
 
Upvote 0
CFPBuckeye said:
Bill Polian and Herm Edwards.

Sure, if the Browns intended to spend that $16M this year, that would be the case. But they weren't spending all that cap space. They entered FA with over $100M in space to start with. They would have to spend over $80M for that $16M to really matter as it is going to disappear off the books next year anyway. That $16M that they weren't going to spend anyway will be back in their cap wallet next year either way.
Click to expand...

That is the budget/accounting of it but in terms of an investment they chose to allocate resources. Anytime you do that you are choosing between at least 3 options (let the money sit, option A or option B).

Which one of those 3 options returns the most value to the organization should be the nature of the debate.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
That is the budget/accounting of it but in terms of an investment they chose to allocate resources. Anytime you do that you are choosing between at least 3 options (let the money sit, option A or option B).

Which one of those 3 options returns the most value to the organization should be the nature of the debate.
Click to expand...

Letting the money sit is no different than signing Osweiler. If the money sits, they have it next year. Sign Osweiler, and the money is there next year. So if their intention was to let $16M sit for the future (which is a reasonable assumption given that they have more than enough money to spend as is and weren't going to spend all of it,) then they essentially did that while getting a 2nd round pick in doing so.
 
Upvote 0
CFPBuckeye said:
Letting the money sit is no different than signing Osweiler. If the money sits, they have it next year. Sign Osweiler, and the money is there next year.
Click to expand...

Unless he is working for free letting the money sit in an account or grow is not the same as signing Osweiler. Those particular $16MM dollars are going out of your account and into his in the form of his pay check.

The team may have another 16MM budgeted for next year but those 16MM cash dollars in 2017 are most certainly spent. So the question is still; could you have gotten more return for letting that cash money sit, doing something else with it or turning them into a 2nd round draft pick in '18.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
So the question is still; could you have gotten more return for letting that cash money sit, doing something else with it or turning them into a 2nd round draft pick in '18.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They might have not spent $16M this year but they wouldn't have any more to spend next year had they not done the deal. I hear what you are saying but other than the team having $16M more, they don't benefit any more next year for having not done the deal. Their cap space next year remains the same.

I'm not a salary cap expert, though. Does the team (aka Haslem's pockets) profit $16M more for having not spent it?

Edit: After thinking about it, I suppose that could be the case. However, if so, does that really impact the team in any positive way competitively? There is no greater benefit to the team, for having not spent that money. The only benefit goes to Tennessee Jerrah.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
Unless he is working for free letting the money sit in an account or grow is not the same as signing Osweiler. Those particular $16MM dollars are going out of your account and into his in the form of his pay check.

The team may have another 16MM budgeted for next year but those 16MM cash dollars in 2017 are most certainly spent. So the question is still; could you have gotten more return for letting that cash money sit, doing something else with it or turning them into a 2nd round draft pick in '18.
Click to expand...

two totally different circumstances. you're discussing an owner's bank account vs. an NFL football team leveraging cap space for assets. Letting the owner's cash sit and collect interest for him doesn't do anything to help the NFL team itself collect assets.
 
Upvote 0
We need to sign at least one free agent DB and one big run stuffing DL. We can get the rest of the guys in the draft. I am in a quandary, like the front office, about the QB situation. I really like Mitch but the lack of playing time really concerns me..
 
Upvote 0
tsteele316 said:
two totally different circumstances. you're discussing an owner's bank account vs. an NFL football team leveraging cap space for assets. Letting the owner's cash sit and collect interest for him doesn't do anything to help the NFL team itself collect assets.
Click to expand...

exactly

one is accounting/budget concept and the other is the investment math

thus my original comment on the way people were framing the conversation
 
Upvote 0
CFPBuckeye said:
I don't think so. They might have not spent $16M this year but they wouldn't have any more to spend next year had they not done the deal. I hear what you are saying but other than the team having $16M more, they don't benefit any more next year for having not done the deal. Their cap space next year remains the same.

I'm not a salary cap expert, though. Does the team (aka Haslem's pockets) profit $16M more for having not spent it?

Edit: After thinking about it, I suppose that could be the case. However, if so, does that really impact the team in any positive way competitively? There is no greater benefit to the team, for having not spent that money. The only benefit goes to Tennessee Jerrah.
Click to expand...

Forget for a second that he will have the same amount to spend next year or where the money came from.

He chose to spend 16MM this year, no matter why, he chose to spend it.

That means the choice was between A) something, or someone, else he could have bought with that 16MM and B) the 2nd round pick in '18

What, or who, else could he have bought with 16MM this year vs the typical value of a 2nd round pick is how talking heads should be framing the arguments. I don't know enough about available free agents or how to measure value produced by players to have any informed opinion.
 
Upvote 0
tsteele316 said:
two totally different circumstances. you're discussing an owner's bank account vs. an NFL football team leveraging cap space for assets. Letting the owner's cash sit and collect interest for him doesn't do anything to help the NFL team itself collect assets.
Click to expand...

The Browns have damaged their rep with fans lately, so spending 16 mil to buy a good pick, will do nothing but help perception. I don't think I've read anything terrible about the Browns in free agency like the past year or two so that's good.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top